Hoi,
A nice expose that is completely beside the point. The point of discussion
is: do we need to translate policies to other languages. Your example is
about an English language article.
What do you know/care about issues on projects in other languages ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4/24/07, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Why the overhead?
Why don't we just wait for the need, "OMG we're doing X on jawiki!",
do what needs to be done "Brion, oversight cary on Jawiki now please!"
... and then clean up and explain after the fact.
Important cases are rare enough that I don't see the need to explain
something in a hundred languages that it will never be used in...
I completely agree.
"Wikimedia Foundation removing an article for a legal threat" is imho a
concept simple enough for being understood by our Wikimedians.
GerardM thinks it's not used due to "not knowing it's out there". I
feel
it's the other way round.
If normal people doesn't know about it, they will only troll a bit at
the Village Pump, Administrators Noticeboard and quit. Things are
managed inside. While a person being serious about suing won't stop by
not seeing a policy supporting it.
So with current approach only important cases arrive to the office,
which is good.
Two weeks ago, a new user which had been trying to push his PV about
canibalism in American natives, wrote a "letter to the Wikipedians" on a
free host, where we were required to remove the content opposed to it
from 50 articles (not mentioned which), adding them a chapter explaining
why it was wrong and also have permanent excuses about it on the Main
Page.
It ended stating that if not following them after being warned,
Wikipedia could be demanded by "cultural associations and american
states".
All of this was said as comng from the "the Raelian movement", as this
man seems to be a local coordinator (note there was no relationship
between Raelianism and the issue, nor any endorsement from the Raelian
movement).
There were three "replies" [1],[2],[3] and all of them mentioned the
ability of referring to WMF.
Not only there wasn't an Office action on our main page, as i'm now
writing this i discovered the original webpage has been changed[4] into
simply explaining his points.
I don't really know if he really contacted foundation (i doubt) but
impossible claims (suing an entity by a webpage) should be kept apart of
normal work if possible.
In an Internet which can be censored with a hotmail account [5], making
policies of "we can be censored by the office" where in the office the
case will be judged by someone which doesn't even read the language the
dispute is on and has never heard of that "fascist communist censoring
sysop" is *dangerous*.
On the other hand, knowing we have the WMF with a lawyer able to defend
NPV is a relief... but it's a knowledge only for advanced wikipedians ;)
1-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001703.html
2-http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikies-l/2007-April/001714.html
3-
http://nidododo.blogspot.com/2007/04/los-raelianos-amenazan-con-demandar.ht…
4-I keep a local copy of the original.
5-http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/09/1929259.shtml
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l